+91-7837990724 simplifitax@gmail.com

HC Strikes Down GST Notifications Curtailing Limitation Period

by | Jul 21, 2025 | Uncategorized | 0 comments

GST limitation period notification

Case Details: Tata Play Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2025] 176 taxmann.com 357 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
  • Joseph Prabakar, Karthik Sundaram, V. Srikanth, N. Sriprakash, Adithya Reddy, N. Murali, Mrs R. Hemalatha, B. Satish Sundar, S. Muthuvenkatraman, B. Sivaraman, R. Kannan, A.K. Rajaraman, Prabhu Mukunth, Arunkumar, Raghavan, Ramabadran, Ms Lakshmi Kumaran, Sridharan Attorneys, ANR Jayaprathap, Mrs Hema Muralikrishnan, K. Thyagarajan, N.V. Balaji, M. Manimaran, A. Mohamed Ismail, Varun Pandian, Ms Radhika Chandrasekhar, Ms P.R. Lavanya, Ms. Allwin Godwin, A. Chandrasekaran, G. Natarajan, K.A. Parthasarathy, R. Anish Kumar, G. Derrick Sam, J. Pooventhera Rajan, Ms R. Harishni, Hari Radhakrishnan, Ms Francy Victor, S. Manoharan Sundaram, V. Haribabu, K. Chandrasekaran, B. Raveendran, D. Prabhu Mukunth, M. Narasimha Bharathi, P. Arumugam, B. Syed abdul Wakeel, Ms S. Jecintha, Ms AAV partners, K.G. Raghunath, M.S. Kanmani Annamalai, K. Sankaranarayanan, Ms S. Vishnupriya, SP. Chidambaram, Abdul Rahman, S. Muthuvenkataraman, Ms G. Vardhini, N. Sudalaimuthu, S. Rajasekar, N. Prasad, N. Inbarajan, N. Sudalai Muthu, Ms Baby Jhon Pulickaparambil, S. Karunakar, B. Satish Kumar, A. Satheesh Murugan, R. Aravindan, R. Mohana Sundharam, D. Kanagasundaram, M.N. Bharathi, Advs., Sujit Ghosh, M. Aravind Subramaniam, Abdul Hameed, B. Syed Abdul, Vijay Narayan, Sr. Advs. & P. Rajkumar, Ad. for the Petitioner.
  • V. Prashanth Kiran, Mrs K. Vasanthamala, S.R. Sundar, Ms Amirtha Dinakaran, V. Pashanth Kiran, Govt. Advs., Rajendran Raghavan, K.S. Ramaswamy, Mrs Revathi Manivannan, R.P. Pragadish, A.P. Srinivas, Rajnish Pathiyil, K. Mohana Murali, T. Ramesh Kutty, B. Ramana Kumar, S.M. Deenadayalan, N. Dilipkumar, R. Nandakumar, R. Gowrishankar, R. Nandakmar, Sr. Standing Counsels, C. Harsha Raj, Special Govt. Pleader, ARL Sundaresan, Addl. Solicitor General, T.N.C. Kaushik, Addl. Govt. Pleader, S. Gurumoorthy, Sai Srujan Tayi, K. Mohanamurali, K. Ashok Kumar Ram, H. Velavadhas, Sr. Panel Counsels, Ms Pooja Jain, JSC, R. Subramaniyam, ACGSC, K. Govindarajan, DSGI, J. Alaguram Jothi, Paramasivam, M. Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy, Sr. Panel Counsel, P. Subbiah, CGSPC, G. Vidhya Maheswaran, Ms B. Deepa, T. Mahendran, CGSCs & T.N.C. Kavshik, Addl. Government Pleader for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged ‘Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax, dated 31-03-2023’ and ‘Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28-12-2023’ issued under section 168A of the CGST Act, contending that they were arbitrary and invalid. It was submitted that section 73 of the CGST Act allows authorities to issue notice for tax or ITC dues not involving fraud within two years and nine months under section 73(2) and to pass order within three years under section 73(10), both reckoned from the due date of filing annual return. The Supreme Court, by order dated 10-01-2022 in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC), excluded the period from 15-03-2020 to 28-02-2022 from computation of limitation. The petitioner contended that the impugned notifications, instead of extending the limitation, fixed specific outer dates for issuance of notice and order for financial years, which actually curtailed the limitation period otherwise available under section 73 and the Supreme Court’s order. It was further submitted that ‘Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28-12-2023’ was issued before recommendations of the GST Council and based only on recommendations of the GIC. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court of Madras.

High Court Held

The High Court of Madras held that ‘Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax, dated 31-03-2023’ and ‘Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28-12-2023’ were illegal as they were based on an erroneous assumption of the limitation period and a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s order under Article 142 of the Constitution. It was held that section 168A of the CGST Act does not empower issuance of notifications that diminish or curtail the limitation otherwise available for issuance of notices and passing of orders under section 73. The Court declared the notifications unsustainable on the ground of arbitrariness, as they extinguished the vested right of action of authorities by reducing the limitation period. The notifications also stood vitiated for being issued without examining relevant materials. Further, ‘Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, dated 28-12-2023’ was held illegal as it was made even before the recommendations of the GST Council and based on recommendations of the GIC. The decision was in favour of revenue.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post HC Strikes Down GST Notifications Curtailing Limitation Period appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *